with conversation or confrontation non-vinon-violentt not on our watch in our generation votes taken from us and they're doing it in broad daylight. >> gentlemen, keep us up to date. that is tonight "reidout." now "all in with chris hayes" is next. slow motion insurrection is continues as the people who can stop it throw up their hands. tonight congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez on the lawmakers blocking federal election legislation. the state of our democracy and much more. then the gaping holes what we don't know after today's senate report on january 6th. and the new calls for a new investigation. plus. brian stelter, how trump tv has memory of the insurrection for half the country. and as the richest man on earth

prepares to leave it, bomb stell that jeff bezos and many of america's wealthiest millionaires paid little or no taxes at all. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. a big divide among the people in this country who are, i don't know, trying to preserve american democracy. the others, beal hysterical. going to be fine. it's always been fine more or less. it will work out. today those two groups got together for a virtual meeting, two sides of the pro-democracy majority in the country. right? every in the story wants to preserve american democracy. one side democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia recently announced with significant fanfare he will not vote for that huge bill to regulate elections and campaign finance and combat voter suppression called hr 1, for the people act, s1 in the senate and's also won't move to reform the filibuster.

opposite the virtual table from senator marchlmanchin, civil ri leaders saying feeling this is existentially threatened pt manchin said the meeting was constructive but did not change his opinion. he represented one-half of what's happening in this country right now. things go back and forth. one side wins. other side minority. things switch in the end the system wins. things hold. democrats in positions of power, even the ones who support the voting rights bill, right? they want the bill but don't think it's up against the wall or facing some existential crisis. this came from supreme court justice stephen breyer appointed by bill clinton decades ago speaking at the national constitutional center last night. >> are you optimistic or pessimistic with the system,

that it will keep working? what can we do to make it work? >> well i don't know -- i am basically up to the -- i don't know how much it's justified. that's senator kennedy to say, the country is swinging now. it swings, sometimes to extreme ways in one ways, sometimes to extremes the other way but sort of rights itself eventually. when enough people in the country say, look, i really want is what we learned in the fifth grade. that people work together, they'll get it. >> people work together. that's great. fifth grade civics. right? how a bill become as law. look, i think the justice holds that view honestly. not doing that, not a political performance. has to get re-elected. that's what he believes. a lot of democrats share that view. it's not the majority view in the democratic coalition but a lot of leaders at crucial pressure points fundamentally believe that the answer to our problems are bipartisanship and

comedy and willing the system to work through frank exchanges of views and it will work out. really, don't freak out. you're being ridiculous. also a message of "new york times" columnist today running a progressive attitude risks becoming a counsel of despair for all of donald trump's postelection madness never came close to getting institution support from courts, government or mitch mcconnell he would have needed to begin a process that could have overturned the election result. january 6th a travesty, a tragedy but basically, calm down, guys. it's not so bad. of course, those accused of being ridiculous and hysterical since donald trump first came down the golden escalator in trump tower. i'm biased, i admit it. as an objective historical matter i think this is going to be terrible people ended up with a better record than the this

will be fine, people. donald trump's presidency culminated, perhaps you recall, in literally the deadliest year in american history. hundreds of thousands of our fellow americans, dead. that was followed by an attempted insurrection cultivated by the sitting president. first time that's really ever happened. then the first ever second impeachment of a president. so the, this is going to be terrible, people, we're not off the mark of that. you can probably tell which camp i'm in considering i'm sounding the alarm on the show every night. i'll tell you this, too. i hope i'm wrong. lord, i would love to be wrong. honestly, i might be i don't know. no one sees the future. love to be the case all of this concern about our basic democratic structures, right, future of our country, is how we go about the collective project of self-governance, it's all hyperbolic, paranoia that american democracy can with stand the assault going against it. making the case, you can say,

yes, look. obviously increasingly radicalizing militant anti-democratic faction in the republican party. yes, taking over local county parties, conducting a ridiculous audit in arizona attempting to take power away from elected officials they don't trust but in the end, came down to it after the 2020 election, enough of the, you know, establishment officials held strong against basically the hoards at the door. again, i'm haunted by the question. what happens if they don't? what happens if enough of those politicians, enough of the "establishment figures" enough of the people suppose to the guarantee law and peaceful transfer of power of collaborators that seek to undo it all? it's actually started to happen. right? republican congressman mo brooks of alabama serving a lawsuit over his role allegedly incite ing the january 6th insurrection, and marjorie

taylor greene saying the president is still the president. and these are, you know, members of the republican party in good standing collaboraing with those who want to bring down our democracy in its current form. here's a literal example of the danger of this. this story is a bit under the radar. listen to this. late last year you may or may not know this a mob showed up at the oregon capitol building, protesting coronavirus restrictions in the state. something we saw in state after state. in ways pre-staged what happened at the national capitol. and this mob managed to get inside the building. some of them carrying gun, bear spray, calls for the arrest of governor kate brown. sounds familiar, radio it? what was rehearsed in the leadup to january 6th. a few weeks later this surveillance video released to the public showing how the mob was able to breach the building, closed at the time, due to the virus. you see someone in that lower left-hand corner there? okay? a guy who walks out of the

building. opens two doors and let's in the group that's waiting just outside. oh, here i go. people in there. just walk past them and now they're inside. several officers quickly arrive pushing the intruders back out. but within a few minutes, the crowd grows. it's eventually able to push back and it overcomes the officers with what looks like chemical irritant sprays. again, all this sounding familiar, that's because, this is a lot of what happened in january 6th insurrection. the man who let them in the door in the first place. who is that? republican state representative mike muirman. that's in there. when the video first came out, question, did he know what he was doing opening dot jr. a coincidence, needed fresh air, the exact moment they're waiting to come in that door? at time he claim read lease of the video was political. said his lair didn't want him to comment on his actions that day. guess what?

new video emerged of mike neerman a few days before that mob breached the oregon state capitol showing him explaining how he would let protesters into the building. >> talking about setting up "operation cold pass" which i don't know anything about. if you accuse me of doing something about it i'll deny it. some person's cell phone, might be 971 -- [ bleep ] random numbers not anybody's actual cell phone. text that number at the last session, somebody mike exit that door while you're standing there. i don't know anything about that. i don't having in to do with that and if i did i wouldn't [ bleep ] say that i did. >> think he's being clever there. huh? nudge, nudge? wink, wink? cell phone number, maintaining plausible liability. we see you, representative. this is part of the district attorney's investigation what happened. he's facing expulsion from the oregon house of representatives.

boy, at the least, you would think. reached out to his lawyer for comment and he said he did not have one. now, this is the containinger. right? there it is on the screen. those of us on the alarmist or i should aalarm side of this, we can see forming before our eyes day by day the process by which there will be more and more mike neermans. more and more republicans in position of power holding the door open for the mob. for more on the state of american democracy at their perilous moment joined by congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. congresswoman, great to have you on the program. >> thank you. >> i want to start with -- i want to start with this sort of division here, and just ask you to react to it if it seems to you accurate. i mean, i spent a lot of my time talking to members of congress and staffers. seems most democratic majority is pretty freaked out about this

stuff and really thinks that there's very important urgency here to defend american democracy. and then some folks think, ah, in the end it will work out. is that track with your experience of the conversations that are happening on the hill? >> i think so. i think that those of us and those democrats who really acknowledge the existential threat and the assault on the right to vote and really, when i say "recognize it" i mean they're putting the pieces together between what the republican party is doing on the state level and the assaults on the right to vote in georgia, texas, arizona, really across the state. and across the country. and how that is being pieced together federally with this idea that we cannot pass legislation to protect the right to vote, because those who are attacking it won't vote to protect it. and i think that -- so there's

an enormous amount of alarm for those of us here who believe that our country is still in a very vulnerable place, post-donald trump, that we are just hanging on a thread of democracy, and it's our responsibility right now with utmost urgency to really strengthen a lot of our democratic institutions that were taken very much to the brink during the trump administration, which culminated on january 6th. and -- and those who, you know -- i think there's just some folks that have unwavering faith in american institutions that really don't have a lot of evidence for why our institutions would not be vulnerable. we saw what happened on january th. 6th and it's really important for folks to connect this to january 6th. the reason those people stormed the capitol was because of the lawsuits, because of all of this

doubt, because of the election challenges. because voter suppression made a lot of racists closer than they should have been, and -- and i think, you know, your assessment is correct, that there's majority i think, are quite concerned but i think there are some members that, you know, represent communities that have never really had their right to vote attacked in a way. they don't represent communities for which this is a very real threat, and so i think they don't think it is as real as it very much is. >> are you talking about -- is that a joe manchin-type reference there? or talking anything in particular. oh, i think joe manchin is absolutely one of them. joe manchin represents a state that isn't have diverse. he doesn't represent a very large population of black voters whose right to vote is constantly under attack. and so i -- i can't help but

wonder aloud. i see this as well, and in the house of representatives. how there usually is hesitancy or it's a little bit more of a debate when a member has to take out a risky vote on a community that they don't represent. and so that representation and that plight in is as internized. i think people think for whom thright to vote hasn't been under attack, that this is something that is overblown, when it very much is not. >> i mean, just to play devil's advocate a minute. it's work talking about, i feel. one of the things interesting and strange here is incentives seem to be aligned for all democratic politicians. right? if you're joe manchin, and you're defying gravity and he sure as heck is. right? a state that went for donald trump by 40 points, you've got to get a lot of black folks in west virginia and there are some

to come out and vote for you. make sure your voters can get to the polls. that's in your interest. he's winning by five points. so it's -- seems to me there should be this sort of political self-preservation interest here above and beyond even the principle of it. you know, operating at this makidavan level. >> this is a reliably red state. attacking the franchise in west virginia is not as high a priority as d.c. >> right. >> in these state-level laws as it is in georgia, you know, in pennsylvania with election challenges. arizona in the attempt to overturn election results. >> right. >> and so, you know, again i think that this is still a very critical issue, but, you know, on that note of political

preservation, one thing that is not being discussed about, and i do think it should be talked about more, is the fact that h.r.-1 is one of the most assertive bills that we have to tackle dark money in politics. and so there are two very key components in hr 1 in the for the people act. one is, a forceful and, and very strong provisions and laws to combat outright voter suppression. and these are proposals, and if passed, it would essentially preempt changes to state law. so protect people's actual right to vote. but the other aspect of this is that hr 1 stands up against lobbyists and dark money. and i would reckon to think that this is probably just as much a

part of joe manchin's calculus as anything else. because when it comes to this bipartisan argument, i got to tell ya, i don't buy it. because joe manchin has voted for bills that have not been bipartisan before. look at the american rescue plan. so this is not just about bipartisanship. this is, i think, because you look at the koch brothers and you look at, you know, organizations like the heritage foundation and conservative lobby groups that are doing a victory lap, claiming victory over the fact that manchin refuses to change on the filibuster. and i think that these two things are very closely intertwined, and i think that there's a desire to make this just about -- protecting the franchise, but protecting our democracy is also about making sure that we give lobbyists and dark money groups, which are funding these attacks, on the right to vote, the boot.

you know, corporate money has a very, very tight grip on both parties. and i think that that has, has to do with the calculus in the situation that people aren't really discussing enough. >> yeah. it's a very good point. i mean, bracket for a second my own feeling about like, what the roberts court would do with the dark money provisions of hr-1, a road, a bridge to cross in the future, but it's striking to me. i want your reaction to this. in some ways, right, mcconnell hates that part. republicans hate, hate, hate the dark money part. hate, hate, hate it. mcconnell is, dark money number one champion. his name on one of the big scotus cases on this. and talk about pre-clearance in the vote be rights acts or john lewis voting rights acts, manchin is in favor of. murkowski wrote a letter about. none of the money, none of the corporate money stuff. right? here's mcconnell today.

a letter that's a starter for him or not. take a listen. >> no threat to the voter lights law. it's against the law to discriminate on the base of race already so i think it's unnecessary. >> so it's like, there's the whack-a-mole, right? there's no problem, narrow it down to provisions you get mcconnell saying, no, he's not down for voting act reinstatement either. >> yes. absolutely. the thing is, it's not just about hr-1. even if mitch mcconnell said i believe in restoration of the voting rights acts. let's pass hr-4. the problem is the changes in hr-4 do not have preemptive power and don't have protections hr-1 has. you pass hr-4, you may get the pre-clearance provisions but not the protections and reforms on gerrymandering.

don't get changes on automatic voter registration. you don't get the actual protections of what republican states are actually attacking black and brown and low-income voters with right now. from poll stations et cetera. so even if you do pass just hr-4 and don't do anything on hr-1, you're still up a creek without a paddle, and we are in very, very, very deep trouble if we do not reform and take swift action to protect our democracy right now. >> you have been very generous with your time. let you go in a second. one more question just on, comments of the vice president down in central america. met with leaders in kuwait mullah and mexico and had this message for folks considering to marc the journey for asylum i want to play and get your reaction to. >> i want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek

to the united states/mexico border. do not come. do not come. >> you -- criticism of that. i guess just to give sort of defense of it and get your reaction to it, right? the thing that people in the administration would say or others is that, look, it really is a very dangerous journey. it could be awful for the people that undertake it, and you want to kind of not create incentive structure that creates more traffic in these corridors that can be so dangerous. what's your problem with her phasing it that way? >> i think the issue here -- first of all i this this is not just about the vice president. this is about the biden administration immigration policy writ large. it's not -- working. it's wrong, and it's inhumane. it's rooted -- and he inherited it. frankly also a problem not just inherited by donald trump but by barack obama, all the way back to the creation of dhs and

i.c.e. under george bush. one issue here in saying that is that guatemalans and central american and south american immigrants know that this journey is dangerous. this is not something lost on them and not something i think we need to inform them of. they make that journey knowing they may die. the reason they or anybody would take a journey knowing that they may die is the same reason why a person who is stuck in a burning building may elect to jump out a window. because they know that their conditions back home in guatemalan people, femicides hatching throughout south america, and -- and there are, there's a great deal of political violence, et cetera. and people leave, because they believe that they have greater chance of being targeted, killed, murdered if they stay. than the odds of them being killed if they go.

on that journey. so they know that this journey is dangerous. what we as a country, what the united states has not done is actually own up to the fact that we have contributed to regime change, destabilization and interventionist foreign policy that has contributed to these awful conditions throughout latin america, and the reason that it's a problem, and this is not just u.s. supporting regime change. this is also climate policy that is impacting the global south. disproportionately. even though these farmers and folks in central and south america contributed to climate change the least in terms of their carbon emissions. >> right. >> they are experiencing the ravages the most right now. and first. so u.s. climate policy has contributed to this. u.s. foreign policy, u.s. economic and trade policy has helped contribute to conditions

that, that people are fleeing, and it -- we cannot as a country, no matter who it is, continue to show up in latin america and say that this is their fault, or that they are to blame. right? because this seems like almost a precursor to say, in saying, that we are going to allege you are coming to this country illegally when seeking asylum on our border is, in fact, legal, and use that to predate any violence that we are willing to inflict on immigrants as a deterrent, and this is policy that happened during the trump administration, but i want to be clear that this is policy that happened during the obama administration as well. and the caging of immigrants was very much documented and it was asserted in many ways, and one with many of the other inhumane policies as a deterrent to say, you know, if we are cruel

enough, maybe people will think twice before coming. and this at its core is completely inhumane. i don't think it's something that any, that the united states should ever use as an immigration policy, period, but it's never something, i believe, i think it's shameful, that any democratic administration, whether obama administration, biden administration, any administration, one that we would choose to adopt. i think we have very severe challenges at our border, and one of the reasons that i think people justify this is that they say, well, look how many, look at the facilities in our border and how they have been crowded. projections that this crowding may be getting worse, but i think that's because we have chosen a carceral immigration policy. and when we choose to gratuitously cage people seeking a better life, those cages will

always be overrun. imagine if right here in new york city, in ellis island, if people's grandparents and great-grandparents were met with cages. how different would the dna and our family histories and trauma be? this is not who we should be as a country. there are challenges i think the message we should be sending to luiten america, first of all, acknowledging our role because we have been hiding and running away from actually acknowledging the role of u.s. history. a major step for us to even say what we've done and then the second thing we can do is say, we can come together, and as, as partners, to try to figure out how we clean up this mess that the united states helped contribute to. because no one wants to leave their home. none of these people -- >> right. >> -- want to leave the communities and insays tral

lands they and their relatives were in. they're fleeing because of situations that have made them flee. our response is not just border policy but how to change the foreign policy so we're no longer supporting, frankly, neoliberal, economic foreign policy that creates an makes developing countries forever in debt, and how do we make sure that we actually change our foreign climate and economic policies so that we prevent these mass migrations to begin with. >> congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. thanks for making time for us tonight. appreciate it. >> of course. thank you. i want to show you something viewers of fox news will never see. an ad where police officers in their own words describe what happened at the capitol on january 6th. and what came after. >> i just remember people still swinging metal poles at us, and they were pushes and shoving, they were spraying us with, you

know, bear mace and pepper spray. >> shouting at us calling us traitors. >> it's been very difficult seeing elected officials and other individuals whitewash the events that day, they're down playing what happened. >> as an american and as an army veteran, it's sad to see us attacked by our fellow citizens. >> responsible for content of this advertising. >> political action committee behind that ad saying they tried to put it on fox. fox rejected it even though according to producers, fox news never before refused to air one of their ads without suggestions for edits. fox didn't give explanation to their decision. didn't have to. if you ever watch fox you know the entire network is devoted to whitewashing what happened january 6th. the republican party is following. how the media is driving the narrative, how we got a bipartisan senate report on the

attack ta doesn't officially call it insurrection, next. in yourself isn't it? uh- huh! well let it go! woooo! get a dollar for dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover. no, he's not in his room. ♪♪ dad, why didn't you answer your phone? your mother loved this park. ♪♪ she did.

hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find better cheers with your favorite fans. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. our team is devoted to your care, with free service adjustments and cleaning of your miracle-ear hearing aids for life. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage. do you struggle with occasional nerve aches, call 1-800-miracle today and experience weakness or discomfort in your hands or feet? introducing nervive nerve relief from the world's number 1 selling nerve care company. as we age, natural changes to our nerves occur which can lead to occasional discomfort. nervive contains b complex vitamins that nourish nerves, build nerve insulation and enhance nerve communication. and, alpha-lipoic acid, which relieves occasional nerve aches, weakness and discomfort. live your life with less nerve discomfort with nervive nerve relief.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ hey google, turn up the heat. ♪ ♪ ♪

these right here, see this, the scars here? these are a part of the injuries sustained that day. this, right here. this is part of my injury that day. both hands, my both, both of my hands were bleeding that day. one, because of people kept punching me, because i'm using the wall against, to get all the

strength i could to push against the crowd. my shoulders still messed up, because people were pulling and -- my shield. they were pulling me to the crowd. i fell on the floor several times. and they still were trying to grab me, grab me just like they did with fanone at the other officers. >> the drama about senate republicans refusing to allow bipartisan commission to investigate the january 6th insurrection by filibustering it, the actual human impact can recede into the background. sort of natural. this u.s. police sergeant you just heard from describing injuries has been on the floor since 2008 and spoke to capitol hill correspondent kasie hunt in his personal capacity, not on behalf of the capitol police and described the violence experienced during the attack. >> one thing that i really, vividly remember, is the crowd

saying, you're a traitor. you are -- choosing a paycheck over the country. you're not american. you are an immigrant. we are going to kill people. get out of the way. we here for mike pence. we here for pelosi. they continued to say, we are here because our president, president trump sent us here, and we won't listen to nobody else but him. >> here for mike pence or nancy pelosi. what would they have done if they found them? today the senate release add new report finding capitol police leadership did not act on warnings trump supporters were trying to breach the capitol. they said we were afraid. also a lot the report does not cover as the "washington post"

points out, does not describe it as insurrection opting for the word "attack" and the role played by donald j. trump. and the chair of the senate homeland committee that published that report and he joins me now. senator, what was the scope of this report, the sort of task before your committees? >> the scope is, it was limited right from the start. it was a bipartisan look what exactly happened january 6th in terms of security failures and why did those failures occur and what changes need to occur that make sure that never happens again and the capitol is secure and the men and women who work in the capitol are secure, that our democracy is secure to an attack on the capitol building. focused on just those day's events, looked at intelligence and saw failures in intelligence. also saw failures from the

leadership of the capitol police, although i want to be clear and certainly your opening showed it vividly, that the front line men and women there defending the capitol were heroes, but they were let down by their leadership. it was clear in our investigation, there wasn't a plan. in fact, during the attack, you'll have officers that were on the radio saying, where is the plan? who has a plan? it put them in a horrible position. also problems with getting the national guard here, and the fact there needed to be a more effective plan out front. so we were focuseds on that. wanted to get a plan, or a report out that had specific recommendations that could be acting on very quickly. there are 20 recommendations in this report, and we hope to get those in place as quickly as possible. >> just a follow-up. i've read the executive summary of the report. what is the what is the answer to the question, why was there no plan? >> there is not a good answer for that to why there wasn't a

plan. actually kind of striking. one of the questions that we asked of the leadership capitol police, were were the officers deployed at the beginning? where were they on the capitol grounds? they couldn't give us that information. it was clear they didn't have that kind of plan. there were intelligence failures. something my committee will continue to work on to find out why 9 intelligence community did not put out the kinds of warnings that would go out to local law enforcement even though the plan was done out in the open pup could see social media and news reports what was said by folks coming to the capitol. the response weren't sure was a credible or first amendment speech? hard for me to wrap my head around. it was clear this was violent and why were these agencies not looking at these comments credibly. we are still trying to get information from the department of homeland security and the fbi. we'll continue to aggressively

pursue that. what did they know, who did they inform? and clearly no accesses to put together a plan. an fbi action came out day before saying folks are coming prepared for war and yet it never got to the actual folks on the front line and the rank and file officers to know exactly what was coming at them. so you had a situation which is in our report, that you had folks in your video show it. we had officers basically just in their regular uniforms. they weren't wearing riot gear. there was inadequate supply of the shields and the helmets, and quite frankly even the training. most of these officers hadn't been trained since in the academy. that makes no sense when you're, when you are defending a capitol that has protests, mass protests, and is subjected to civil disturbance like we saw at an unprecedented level on january 6th.

>> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said today, i will play this for you. basically why we don't need a january 6th commission. get your response. take a listen. >> todayen report is one of the many reasons i'm confident in the ability of existing investigations to uncover all actionable facts about the events of january 6th. >> what do you think of that? >> well, this report in no way whatsoever and never intended to be a complete commission report that looked at all aspects of this attack, including what led to it. what motivated folks to come to the capitol and, you know, we know from open sources we have the former president trump talking how it's going to be wild, and how he put out his false accusations about election. all false statements. "stop the steal." it was clear he was sending folk there's to try to stop counting

of the votes, in my mind is an insurrection is what he was fostering but we were focused on just the actual breaches, meant to the limited in scope. we need to do a whole lot more, ask a whole lot nor confess and get the answers and disappointed we don't have a commission and other committees need to pick this back up as well. look at 9/11 before the commission went forward, a large number of investigations done by a variety of committees in the congress. i certainly hope we can continue to have those investigations. we can't be done. i mentioned top of this interview, my committee as chair of homeland security, we are looking into the rise of violent extremists groups, domestic terrorism, which is a significant, the most worrisome threat, terrorist threat to our homeland is domestic. it's not foreign. and we certainly saw elements of that on january 6th. and we have to treat this threat

with the seriousness it deserves. we are not giving up when it comes to could not being to look at what is behind this rise of domestic terrorism we've seen recently. >> senator gary peters, chair of that homeland security committee. thank you so much for your time. >> great to be with you. of course, if you're a regular viewer of this network you've heard and seen the footage as we saw in b role, violent insurrection perpetrated by supporters of donald trump. if you're a fox news viewers probably told essentially the opposite and probably not heard much about that as all. >> we don't need no stinkin' commission to tell us what happened january 6th. at least no one with a brain does. we already know what happened. first, an election that some believe was tainted by fraud. >> when a bunch of middle aged people deep in credit card debt, white supremacist dressed up like chewbacca to overthrow our democracy. >> any proceeding would be used

at yet another sneer campaign against donald trump or republicans and trump supporters everywhere. >> brian stelter, "reliable forces host, and a new book out today chronicle how fox news became radicalized, a desperate ratings decision. and the management team tried to find a way to lure the fox audience back home and gave the viewers what we wanted, they did it, false hope. and brian stelter joins me now. this came out before these events and you did rewriting for the paperback. really fascinating moment. >> yes. >> after the election where really for the first time in its entire time on cable news that fox had real competition from sort of upstart right-wing networks eating into their audience. seeing number the in a way we hadn't before. what did that do? play out in fox?

and what did it do to them an what they were putting on-air? >> terrified fox producers, anchors and hosts like never scared before, because as you said, chris. fox in a monopoly on right-wing tv and all that changed after january 3rd. cut into the base audience and fox lured them back by running to the right. happens step-by-step, day-by-day. hard to notice if only watching minute-by-minute. when i stepped back it's clear about getting rid of the news and adding more opinion about the news. the result, it's worked. they scared away newsmax. rebounded because they have radicalized. >> especially particularly seems to me on these big questions, right? the big lie and then the insurrection that in the wake of the, my understanding and some of your reporting indicates this, that the view from certain parts at least at the top of fox

was like joe biden won this election and we should tell our viewers that. and that created the vexen because people didn't want to here that. >> created incredible amount of tension within fox because viewers had an option. had an option to go to news max where biden was not president elect and trump might still be a winner. >> right. >> a lot of that contributes to the environment we deal with january th. this is the first book grapples with the riot and aftermath. if you didn't have months of commentary, didn't have these months of lies on fox and news max you do not get to the steps of capitol. it just can't happen without this radicalized right-wing tv. >> who's giving orders, who's receiving them? who's following whom? a question throughout. one of the dynamics of the trump presidency, talking about

state-controlled media. more like a media-controlled state. donald trump would watch fox and then that would tell him, like -- they were sort of running the show. he was responding to it, and then the situation which fox tries to set the agenda and can't do it. everyone is chasing the same base. everyone thinks they're following. >> why so many sources at fox started to leak to me in the trump years, because they were disturbed by what you're describing. they were disturbed by the fact that they were setting the ajind agenda for the president. a white house aide fox suffered from fox news brain. in a cave of his own making napts scary. scarier, millions of viewers are there as well. that is a perishably different from the bush or obama years. >> you say this in the book, that practically every change, talking changes made in the-of-in this period frenetic

fear, like serving dessert about how awful the dinner was and why are chefs so corrupt? i always found the news part a little hard to swallow. you make the argument there was an actual news division that actually has been essentially pushed back, and forced to retreat? >> there are real journalists at fox but fewer and fewer of them, have fewer air time and feel more pressure to toe the right-wing line. it moves along the same path pap reporter at fox you know the three-step approach that i outline in "host." three-step approach to whitewashing bad news, about the gop. ignore it if you can, excuse it if you can't conspiracy it. when they can't ignore it they come unwith conspiracy theories about it. it's sickening and fault of the

murdochs. rupert and murdock allowed it to happen by not showing leadership at the network. >> and single most figure in the anglofone world. thank you very much. "hoax "a out in paper back today. thanks. still ahead, unprecedented look how the wealthiest people in this country manage to pay so very little, i mean, like, really little income tax. easy special willy compared to, basically, everyone else. that's next. ext.

with relapsing forms of ms... there's a lot to deal with. not just unpredictable relapses. all these other things too. it can all add up. kesimpta is a once-monthly at-home injection... that may help you put these rms challenges in their place. kesimpta was proven superior at reducing the rate of relapses, active lesions, and slowing disability progression vs aubagio. don't take kesimpta if you have hepatitis b, and tell your doctor if you have had it,

as it could come back. kesimpta can cause serious side effects, including infections. while no cases of pml were reported in rms clinical trials, it could happen. tell your doctor if you had or plan to have vaccines, or if you are or plan to become pregnant. kesimpta may cause a decrease in some types of antibodies. the most common side effects are upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and injection reactions. ready for an at-home treatment with dramatic results? it's time to ask your doctor about kesimpta. ♪♪ [music and sound effects played in reverse] this...is our shot. the covid-19 vaccines are ready. and so is walgreens, with pharmacy experts ready to make it easy for you to get it safely, for free. because this is our shot... ...at getting back together.

discover card i just got my cashback match is this for real? yup! we match all the cash back new card members earn at the end of their first year automatically woo! i got my mo-ney! it's hard to contain yourself isn't it? uh- huh! well let it go! woooo! get a dollar for dollar match at the end of your first year. only from discover. do you struggle with occasional nerve aches, get a dollar for dollar match at the end of your first year. weakness or discomfort in your hands or feet? introducing nervive nerve relief from the world's number 1 selling nerve care company. as we age, natural changes to our nerves occur which can lead to occasional discomfort. nervive contains b complex vitamins that nourish nerves, build nerve insulation and enhance nerve communication. and, alpha-lipoic acid, which relieves occasional nerve aches, weakness and discomfort. live your life with less nerve discomfort with nervive nerve relief. every day unilever does good for communities across america. ♪♪ every squeeze every smile every drop every style

every spray every bubble every day dove, suave & hellmann's donate everyday products to local communities. every day u does good. unilever advil dual action fights pain 2 ways. it's the first and only fda approved combination of advil plus acetaminophen. advil targets pain. acetaminophen blocks it. advil dual action. fast pain relief that lasts 8 hours. it's finally come to this. the richest person on the planet wants to leave it. >> you see earth from space. it changes you. it changes your relationship with this planet, with humanity. it's one earth. i want to go on this flight because it's a thing i've wanted

to do all my life. it's an adventure. it's a big deal for me. >> jeff bezos, the founder of amazon, announced yesterday he would be heading to space on january 20. he'll be one of six people on the flight, including one auction winner and his brother. right now the current high bid for a ticket is nearly $4 million. bezos steps down as ceo of amazon on july 5th. about two weeks after that, he lifts off from north texas. bezos is the richest man in the world. he has so much money that he funds side hustles, or my personal favorite, which is that bezos recently commissioned a new superyacht, which will be 418,000 feet long. it cost millions just to build.

we do know that it comes with its own support yacht for helicopter to land on and take to the bigger yacht. the average cost for the yacht will be about $60 million a year, which is barely pocket change for jeff bezos who is estimated to be worth $186 billion. here's the thing. rich people are going to continue to do rich people things, even with a struggling global economy because of covid, go to space, and build yachts. they'll also avoid paying federal income taxes. according to this truly astonishing new report, jeff bezos and a bunch of billionaires did just that. this report has to be confirmed by nbc news. it does not allege anything illegal, but get this. the scandal is what's legal. between 2006 and 2018, bezos' wealth shot up $120 billion

while he paid a miniscule proportion in taxes. that is to say, for every 100 million wealth growth in that period, they paid thousands in taxes. bezos paid $1.09. we've got to start first with what this set of data is, jessie. you get tax information of americans. >> we're not sure bezos would be on this planet as we compiled this data, but we have thousands of information on americans covering more than 15 years.

we don't just have tax return data but tax information data, so lots of schedules that filter in to the tax return on things like stock trades and partnerships and counter-parties, gambling winnings and we have a lot of data on audits. and it covers more than 15 years, as i say. so it's a vast trove. >> you can't talk sources of methods, obviously, and we're not going to linger on this. but there's some part of me that's a little hinky about people's private tax data and ending up, you know, in the newspaper. >> well, we're being very careful stewards of this information, and we're not wikileaks, we're not publishing it all in its entirety. we're combing through the data for stories that we believe are in the public interest. the first most important thing about the data, are they

verified, are they true, and they are true. we have verified them substantially with more than 50 people and the people that we wrote about today in this story. and also then we want to figure out whether it's newsworthy. we think it is in the public interest for the public to understand how the wealthy avoid taxes. >> yes. okay. it's newsworthy as hell. the true tax rate for the richest people in the country. this is not speculation. warren buffett, .1%. jeff bezos, .98%, michael bloomberg, 1.30%. elon musk, 3.27%. this is astonishing. there are pipefitters and nurses

paying way more than that. these numbers are mind blowing. >> we did, too, that's why we're publishing it. that's compared to their wealth growth. we are all in the income tax system. we get paid salaries, most of us get paid salaries, taxes get taken out of it. if you make a typical salary in the united states, $60,000, $70,000, about 14% gets taken out. for the top 25 wealthiest americans in 2014 to 2018, compared to their wealth growth, which is not income by the tax system, but it is income for them. it is the way that they have means and the means grow and they get the wherewithall to do the things they do, like build yachts and donate to charity and donate to political campaigns. this is them comparing their taxes to that data.

so that's 10 cents for every $100 that buffett increases in wealth and 98 cents in the last five years and $1.09 from 2016 to 2018 for every 100 years that bezos' wealth went up. >> look, i bought a stock for $20 a share. it went up to $200 a share. i haven't sold it yet. it doesn't count as income yet because i haven't sold it, it just increased. but you folks making this reporting, these folks don't have income in the traditional sense. they're basically able to move money through different channels and then into what they need to buy their yachts or shuttles in ways that essentially just keep the wealth off of the ledger that shows up as income so they don't pay any income taxes. >> yeah. so jeff bezos gets a middle

class salary of about $85,000. sometimes these ceos get $1 salaries which are sometimes ostentatious displays of so-called sacrifice. salaries at the high level are taxed at the highest marginal rates. there's not much of a sacrifice. the point we're trying to make is these guys are outside the system entirely. when you have wealth growth, you are not in the american tax system, because the american tax system as you know taxes income in the very traditional sense. this is wealth growth, and what they do is they borrow against their wealth growth. so the question is, okay, they've got wealth growth, they've got unrealized gains, but how do they live, how do they buy the stuff they want to buy? they borrow it. elon musk has pledged 92 million shares to get money. larry ellison has had a $10 billion credit line.

they borrow against it and they don't have to actually realize their gains and sometimes they actually can take the interest that they're spending on the borrowing and deduct it from their income. >> we didn't get to this. time's up. jeff bezos, in 2011, he got a $400 tax credit for his children. if more reporting comes out of this, i'd like to talk to you again. thank you so much. >> we'll be reporting more on this. that is "all in" on this tuesday night. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening chris, much appreciated. thank you all for joining us this hour. he went to morehouse. he got a law degree from emory, he had a distinguished career in the state of the new jersey in the most populist county in new jersey. he became a